What we learned from the 'Making a Murderer' filmmakers' Twitter Q&A

Twitter got a chance to question the filmmakers of Making a Murderer Wednesday, and leapt at the opportunity to clear up some of the rebuttals that have followed the release of the wildly popular series.

New details have continued to emerge as Internet sleuths hungry for answers pore over the available evidence, and as key participants emerge to have their say about the docuseries.

Trial prosecutor Ken Kratz has spoken out, as has Brendan Dassey's original lawyer. Meanwhile, Steven Avery's ex-fiancee, Jodi Stachowski, was the subject of a controversial interview by Nancy Grace. Each one has complicated the picture painted in Murderer.

The most recent questions about Avery's case have centered on the making of the docuseries — with some, most notably Kratz, accusing the filmmakers of excluding forensic evidence that would have cast a negative light on Steven Avery's innocence.

Unsurprisingly, we're discovering that learning the truth about a man's innocence or guilt is a lot more complicated than simply watching a documentary, even one that lasts 10 hours.

Perhaps in light of these recent accusations, filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi took over the Making a MurdererTwitter account on Wednesday for a candid Q&A. Here are some of the most surprising revelations that emerged as a result:

The film wasn't intended to focus on Steven Avery's innocence or guilt

In fact, say Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi, this is the biggest misconception about the film. Instead, they set out to tackle the veracity of the judicial process:

"MaM [Making a Murderer] isn't about whether or not Avery is guilty," they tweeted. "It's about what the State of Wisconsin did or didn't do in its efforts to convict Avery."

Twitter user @cdnwildcat586 specifically referenced Jodi Stachowski, Avery's fiancee at the time of the arrest on the charge of murder. In Stachowski's interview with HLN's Nancy Grace, in addition of accusing Avery of domestic violence, Stachowski said that she had asked to be removed from the documentary.

But Demos and Ricciardi denied the latter claim, writing:

"There are many inaccurate stories being aired/printed about our process...We had her permission to use all the footage. It's not true that she asked us not to be part of the documentary."

They also said they saw 'no evidence' that Jodi Stachowski was threatened or coerced by Avery in any way:

"We saw no indication of that. We saw a woman who was supportive of Steven & Brendan & under a tremendous amt of pressure frm law enforcement [sic]" they tweeted.

The state of Wisconsin tried to subpoena their footage

Demos and Ricciardi say one of the 'many challenges' of 'Making a Murder' was an attempt by the state of Wisconsin to obtain their footage: "We had to hire a lawyer and file a motion to quash the subpoena which we won. If State had won they would have effectively shut down the production."

They believe media can make negative contributions to the justice system

Demos and Ricciardi referenced the media's responsibility to the justice system, and singled this out as one of the four impactful things they learned in the making of the film:

"There are powerful external forces like the media impacting our court system and influencing verdicts."

They also urged the public to act when they see prejudicial coverage of a criminal case:

They ended the Q&A with a call for unity: "This should be about us coming together to work towards the common goal of an improved system."

Steven Avery's parents still hope for his exoneration

One of the most compelling stories in the film belongs to Avery's parents who, after he was released from jail for a rape he did not commit, were devastated by the impact of their son's second incarceration:

"They continue to suffer every day Steven and Brendan are in prison. But they're feeling uplifted by the recent letters of support they've received, and encouraged that Steven has a new lawyer."

They deny that significant evidence was left out of the film

The prosecution alleged that Avery's DNA was found under the hood of victim Teresa Halbach's car, in addition to the blood evidence in the car. However, this was left out of the film.

"He stuck his sweaty hands underneath the hood and a full DNA— non blood DNA profile — was developed," Kratz told Nightline in a filmed interview.

This is particularly significant because it undermines the defense's allegation that the blood evidence was planted by Manitowoc County Sheriff's department. But Demos and Ricciardi said that the sweat DNA was neither significant nor did it belong in the film:

"Strongest evidence of guilt is in the series. The evidence left out is less significant, redundant... disputed, and in some cases inadmissible (unreliable/irrelevant/prejudicial)"

Specifically, they say that particular DNA evidence was ruled out:

"The question is how it got there. A crime lab expert testified that he went under the hood after handling other evidence and did not change his gloves.

"The defense argued there was the potential for contamination. The alternative argument was planting. It was disputed evidence and neither side was presented in the series with respect to this less significant evidence."

Mashable
is a global, multi-platform media and entertainment company. Powered by its own proprietary technology, Mashable is the go-to source for tech, digital culture and entertainment content for its dedicated and influential audience around the globe.